Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs Manjeet Kaur & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1458 of 2023)
Background
Land in a Delhi village was acquired by the Government decades ago, but the person who challenged the acquisition in the High Court was not the original landowner. She was a person who had later "purchased" an interest in the land only through an agreement to sell, an assignment deed, and possession/utility documents, without any registered sale deed. The Delhi High Court accepted her writ petition and declared the acquisition proceedings "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, on the ground that neither possession of the land nor compensation had been handed over. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a person who is only a subsequent purchaser (and not the original landowner) has no legal standing ("locus") to claim that an acquisition has lapsed: this follows settled law from earlier decisions (Shiv Kumar, Godfrey Philips). The Court also noted that the earlier ruling the High Court relied on (Pune Municipal Corporation) had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal, which clarified that "lapse" under Section 24(2) requires that BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid, not merely one or the other, and that a subsequent purchaser cannot use Section 24(2) to reopen concluded acquisitions. On these two independent grounds the High Court's order was quashed, and the original writ petition was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
If you buy land or a property interest only through an unregistered agreement to sell (without a proper registered sale deed), you generally cannot step into the shoes of the original owner to challenge a government land acquisition. Courts will treat you as lacking standing to raise such claims.